scholarly journals The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments

2006 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 662-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Tarrant ◽  
Aimee Knierim ◽  
Sasha K. Hayes ◽  
James Ware
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Item Writing

scholarly journals The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 354-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Tarrant ◽  
Aimee Knierim ◽  
Sasha K. Hayes ◽  
James Ware
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Item Writing

Best of Five MCQs for the Acute Medicine SCE

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Acute Medicine ◽  
Acute Conditions

Best of Five MCQs for the Acute Medicine SCE is a new revision resource designed specifically for this high-stakes exam. Containing over 350 Best of Five multiple choice questions, this dedicated guide will help candidates to prepare successfully. The content mirrors the SCE in Acute Medicine Blueprint to ensure candidates are fully prepared for all the topics that may appear in the exam. Topics range from how to manage acute problems in cardiology or neurology to managing acute conditions such as poisoning. All answers have full explanations and further reading to ensure high quality self-assessment and quick recognition of areas that require further study.

Assessment of Item-Writing Flaws in Multiple-Choice Questions

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemarie Nedeau-Cayo ◽  
Deborah Laughlin ◽  
Linda Rus ◽  
John Hall
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Item Writing

scholarly journals Assessment of Global Health Education: The Role of Multiple-Choice Questions

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan T. Douthit ◽  
John Norcini ◽  
Keren Mazuz ◽  
Michael Alkan ◽  
Marie-Therese Feuerstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Education ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
International Health ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Global Health Education ◽  
Item Writing ◽  
Difficulty Index

Introduction: The standardization of global health education and assessment remains a significant issue among global health educators. This paper explores the role of multiple choice questions (MCQs) in global health education: whether MCQs are appropriate in written assessment of what may be perceived to be a broad curriculum packed with fewer facts than biomedical science curricula; what form the MCQs might take; what we want to test; how to select the most appropriate question format; the challenge of quality item-writing; and, which aspects of the curriculum MCQs may be used to assess.Materials and Methods: The Medical School for International Health (MSIH) global health curriculum was blue-printed by content experts and course teachers. A 30-question, 1-h examination was produced after exhaustive item writing and revision by teachers of the course. Reliability, difficulty index and discrimination were calculated and examination results were analyzed using SPSS software.Results: Twenty-nine students sat the 1-h examination. All students passed (scores above 67% - in accordance with University criteria). Twenty-three (77%) questions were found to be easy, 4 (14%) of moderate difficulty, and 3 (9%) difficult (using examinations department difficulty index calculations). Eight questions (27%) were considered discriminatory and 20 (67%) were non-discriminatory according to examinations department calculations and criteria. The reliability score was 0.27.Discussion: Our experience shows that there may be a role for single-best-option (SBO) MCQ assessment in global health education. MCQs may be written that cover the majority of the curriculum. Aspects of the curriculum may be better addressed by non-SBO format MCQs. MCQ assessment might usefully complement other forms of assessment that assess skills, attitude and behavior. Preparation of effective MCQs is an exhaustive process, but high quality MCQs in global health may serve as an important driver of learning.

scholarly journals Exploring Clinical Reasoning Strategies and Test-Taking Behaviors During Clinical Vignette Style Multiple-Choice Examinations: A Mixed Methods Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 709-714 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Sanjay Heist ◽  
Jed David Gonzalo ◽  
Steven Durning ◽  
Dario Torre ◽  
David Michael Elnicki
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Reasoning ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Clinical Vignette ◽  
Clinical Knowledge ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Test Taking ◽  
Premature Closure ◽  
Low Performance ◽  
Knowledge Deficits

Abstract Background Clinical vignette multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used in medical education, but clinical reasoning (CR) strategies employed when approaching these questions have not been well described. Objectives The aims of the study were (1) to identify CR strategies and test-taking (TT) behaviors of physician trainees while solving clinical vignette MCQs; and (2) to examine the relationships between CR strategies and behaviors, and performance on a high-stakes clinical vignette MCQ examination. Methods Thirteen postgraduate year–1 level trainees completed 6 clinical vignette MCQs using a think-aloud protocol. Thematic analysis employing elements of grounded theory was performed on data transcriptions to identify CR strategies and TT behaviors. Participants' CR strategies and TT behaviors were then compared with their US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores. Results Twelve CR strategies and TT behaviors were identified. Individuals with low performance on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge demonstrated increased premature closure and increased faulty knowledge, and showed comparatively less ruling out of alternatives or admission of knowledge deficits. High performers on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge demonstrated increased ruling out of alternatives and admission of knowledge deficits, and less premature closure, faulty knowledge, or closure prior to reading the alternatives. Conclusions Different patterns of CR strategies and TT behaviors may be used by high and low performers during high-stakes clinical vignette MCQ examinations.

The Role of Order and Sequence of Options in Multiple-choice Questions for High-stakes Tests of English Language Proficiency

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 110
Author(s):  
Talip Karanfil ◽  
Steve Neufeld
Keyword(s):  
Language Proficiency ◽  
English Language ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
High Volume ◽  
English Language Proficiency ◽  
Proficiency Tests ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Two Factors

High-stakes and high-volume English language proficiency tests typically rely on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to assess reading and listening skills. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, more institutions are using MCQs via online assessment platforms, which facilitate shuffling the order of options within test items to minimize cheating. There is scant research on the role that order and sequence of options plays in MCQs, so this study examined the results of a paper-based, high-stakes English proficiency test administered in two versions. Each version had identical three-option MCQs but with different ordering of options. The test-takers were chosen to ensure a very similar profile of language ability and level for the groups who took the two versions. The findings indicate that one in four questions exhibited significantly different levels of difficulty and discrimination between the two versions. The study identifies order dominance and sequence priming as two factors that influence the outcomes of MCQs, both of which can accentuate or diminish the power of attraction of the correct and incorrect options. These factors should be carefully considered when designing MCQs in high-stakes language proficiency tests and shuffling of options in either paper-based or computer-based testing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document